EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4107038/2019 (V) Held via Cloud Video Platform on August 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs Janette Milne v Represented by: Ms L Neil Solicitor Glasgow City Council — 2019

Mrs Janette Milne was employed by Glasgow City Council as a home carer and was dismissed without notice following a disciplinary hearing on 23 November 2018. She appealed; the appeal letter was dated 7 December 2018, the appeal hearing was postponed once, and the appeal was heard on 30 April 2019, when it was unsuccessful. The tribunal recorded that early conciliation notification was received by ACAS on 20 February 2019, the EC certificate issued on 20 March 2019, and the ET1 was lodged on 22 May 2019.

The only issue at this preliminary hearing was time bar for the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal set out the section 111 ERA 1996 time limit, the effect of section 207B ERA 1996, and authorities including Dedman, Porter, Palmer, Asda Stores v Kauser, and Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan. It found that the claimant did not know how to start an Employment Tribunal claim or that there was a time limit, and accepted her evidence that she had not been advised about ET proceedings, the time limit, or early conciliation by her trade union representatives.

The tribunal also found that the claimant suffered from bipolar disorder, that her mental health significantly impaired her ability to function normally between shortly after her dismissal and the lodging of the ET1, and that her GP records supported that conclusion. It accepted that she relied on her daughter to deal with matters because of her mental health and lack of internet use, and that her daughter contacted ACAS and sought legal advice only after the appeal failed.

On that basis, the tribunal held that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her unfair dismissal complaint within the statutory time limit and that, when the claimant became aware of the time limit after speaking to Mr McGrade following the appeal outcome, the delay in presenting the ET1 was not unreasonable. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing. The respondent was directed to lodge its substantive response within 28 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.